DOCSLIB.ORG

Movement Patterns of Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus Clarki Clarki) in South Puget Sound, Washington 2006-2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Movement Patterns of Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus Clarki Clarki) in South Puget Sound, Washington 2006-2007 Movement Patterns of Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) in South Puget Sound, Washington 2006-2007. by Sarah R. Haque A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Environmental Study The Evergreen State College June 2008 2008 by Sarah R. Haque. All rights reserved. This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Study Degree by Sarah R. Haque has been approved for The Evergreen State College by ________________________ Amy Cook PhD Member of the Faculty ________________________ Paul Butler PhD Member of the Faculty ________________________ Joseph M. Jauquet, PhD, MES ________________________ Date Abstract Movement Patterns of Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) in South Puget Sound, Washington 2006-2007. Sarah Haque Few studies have focused on the anadromous life-history form of coastal cutthroat. Migratory pathways of coastal cutthroat, especially short-distance estuarine migrations, are even less understood. Previous studies on coastal cutthroat trout primarily focused on freshwater systems and described spawning and rearing characteristics, population structures, and genetics of the freshwater life-history forms. This study collected baseline data on movements and nearshore habitat use of two sample populations (Totten-Little Skookum Inlets and Squaxin/Hope Island) of anadromous coastal cutthroat trout in South Puget Sound using acoustic tracking technology. A total of forty cutthroat were captured in their marine environment, surgically implanted with acoustic transmitters and tracked for eight months via a network of multi-channel acoustic receivers placed throughout the deep South Sound area of South Puget Sound. Analysis suggested a difference in movement patterns and distances traveled between sample populations; however, the overall trend for both sample groups was a movement towards the extreme terminal areas of the study area. A significant difference (P<0.05) in movements in relation to size-class was found in both populations. Analysis of associations between movements of coastal cutthroat trout and chum salmon migrations suggested the Totten-Little Skookum Inlets group displayed movement patterns that closely followed both adult and juvenile chum salmon migrations. However, movement patterns displayed from the Squaxin/Hope Island group did not reveal this same behavior, however, indicating a lack of large-scale movements from broader and deeper-water areas into more defined inlets in response to temporally discrete chum salmon migrations. Data also suggested that anadromous coastal cutthroat in South Puget Sound may have a home range distinct from Central and North Puget Sound and may heavily utilize specific habitats, such as Skookum Inlet, during the fall and winter months. Table of Contents Page List of Figures..............................................................................................................................vi List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................vii Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................viii Introduction..................................................................................................................................1 Background.............................................................................................................................1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................................4 Methods and Materials.................................................................................................................6 Study Design...........................................................................................................................6 Instrumentation .......................................................................................................................8 Acoustic Transmitters ........................................................................................................8 Acoustic Receivers.............................................................................................................10 Field Procedures......................................................................................................................11 Receiver Locations and Deployment .................................................................................11 Sampling Cutthroat ............................................................................................................11 Surgical Implantation.........................................................................................................11 Results..........................................................................................................................................13 Movements of Sample Groups................................................................................................13 Depth Tag Readings...........................................................................................................13 Totten-Little Skookum Inlets Sample Group.....................................................................18 Squaxin/Hope Island Sample Group..................................................................................20 Comparison between Sample Groups................................................................................21 Relationship of Movement Patterns to Size-Class of Cutthroat.........................................21 Relationship between Cutthroat Movement Patterns and Chum Run-Timing........................22 Discussion....................................................................................................................................22 Movements of Sample Groups................................................................................................22 Depth Tag Readings...........................................................................................................23 Totten-Little Skookum Inlets Sample Group.....................................................................24 Squaxin/Hope Island Sample Group..................................................................................25 Comparison between Sample Groups................................................................................25 Relationship of Movement Patterns to Size-Class of Cutthroat.........................................27 Relationship between Cutthroat Movement Patterns and Chum Run-Timing........................27 Limitations...................................................................................................................................28 Recommendations for Future Research.......................................................................................29 Management Implications............................................................................................................30 Literature Cited............................................................................................................................32 Appendix 1: Angling protocols....................................................................................................34 iv Appendix 2: Sampling Data.........................................................................................................35 v List of Figures Page Figure 1: Coastal cutthroat trout distribution in Southern B.C., Washington, Oregon, and California ....................................................................................................................................3 Figure 2: Study area map .............................................................................................................5 Figure 3: Frequency of time spent at each receiver represented by detections............................14 Figure 4: Geographic representation of Tag ID #54 movements.................................................15 Figure 5: Frequency of time spent at each receiver represented by detections............................16 Figure 6: Geographic representation of Tag ID #56 movements.................................................17 Figure 7: Geographic representation of Tag ID #828 movements...............................................19 Figure 8: Visual representation of cutthroat depth in relation to seafloor ...................................23 vi List of Tables Page Table 1: Locations of the 12 receivers deployed for this study ...................................................6 Table 2: Locations of the existing network of receivers..............................................................7 Table 3: Overview of acoustic tag type and specifications..........................................................9 Table 4: Acoustic tags used in this study.....................................................................................10 Table 5: Fish-to-Tag Ratio calculations used to determine tag type............................................12 Table 6: Summary table for cutthroat implanted with depth tags................................................13 vii Acknowledgments This study could not have been possible without the collaborative efforts of many individuals and organizations, all of which deserve sincere thanks and acknowledgement. Funding and support for this study were provided by Fred
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 13 -- Puget Sound, Washington
    514 Puget Sound, Washington Volume 7 WK50/2011 123° 122°30' 18428 SKAGIT BAY STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA S A R A T O 18423 G A D A M DUNGENESS BAY I P 18464 R A A L S T S Y A G Port Townsend I E N L E T 18443 SEQUIM BAY 18473 DISCOVERY BAY 48° 48° 18471 D Everett N U O S 18444 N O I S S E S S O P 18458 18446 Y 18477 A 18447 B B L O A B K A Seattle W E D W A S H I N ELLIOTT BAY G 18445 T O L Bremerton Port Orchard N A N 18450 A 18452 C 47° 47° 30' 18449 30' D O O E A H S 18476 T P 18474 A S S A G E T E L N 18453 I E S C COMMENCEMENT BAY A A C R R I N L E Shelton T Tacoma 18457 Puyallup BUDD INLET Olympia 47° 18456 47° General Index of Chart Coverage in Chapter 13 (see catalog for complete coverage) 123° 122°30' WK50/2011 Chapter 13 Puget Sound, Washington 515 Puget Sound, Washington (1) This chapter describes Puget Sound and its nu- (6) Other services offered by the Marine Exchange in- merous inlets, bays, and passages, and the waters of clude a daily newsletter about future marine traffic in Hood Canal, Lake Union, and Lake Washington. Also the Puget Sound area, communication services, and a discussed are the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and variety of coordinative and statistical information.
    [Show full text]
  • Mclane Cove Shellfish Protection District
    DRAFT McLane Cove Shellfish Protection District A committee of citizens, business and government is launching a plan to: Reduce water pollution Meet state and federal water quality standards Ensure that water quality standards are maintained May 10, 2016 Prepared by Stephanie Kenny Environmental Health Specialist Mason County Public Health 360-427-9670 ext 581 [email protected] This document is also available online at: Table of Contents A. Purpose of the McLane Cove Shellfish Protection District B. Background information and history C. Strategy for water quality improvement Definitions of Acronyms DOH- Washington State Department of Health ECY- Washington State Department of Ecology MC- Mason County MCD- Mason Conservation District MCPH- Mason County Public Health NEP- National Estuaries Program NHD- National Hydrography Dataset NSSP- National Shellfish Sanitation Program QAPP- Quality Assurance Project Plan Septic O & M- Septic system operation and maintenance SPD- Shellfish Protection District SIT- Squaxin Island Tribe SPD- Shellfish Protection District A. Purpose of the McLane Cove Shellfish Protection District Background In May 2015 Washington State Department of Health downgraded 31 acres in the Pickering Passage Growing Area (McLane Cove) from Approved to Conditionally Approved. This classification change is in response to Marine Station 57 in McLane Cove failing the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) water quality standards for Approved classification. The Conditionally Approved classification means that harvest of shellfish is not allowed under certain conditions. For McLane Cove 0.75 inches of rainfall in 24 hours will trigger a 5 day closure. Rainfall data is collected at the Taylor FLUPSY in Oakland Bay. A Shellfish Protection District program is required to be put in place after a growing area classification is downgraded.
    [Show full text]
  • South Puget Sound Forum Environmental Quality – Economic Vitality Indicators Report Updated July 2006
    South Puget Sound Forum Environmental Quality – Economic Vitality Indicators Report Updated July 2006 Making connections and building partnerships to protect the marine waters, streams, and watersheds of Nisqually, Henderson, Budd, Eld and Totten Inlets The economic vitality of South Puget Sound is intricately linked to the environmental health of the Sound’s marine waters, streams, and watersheds. It’s hard to imagine the South Sound without annual events on or near the water - Harbor Days Tugboat Races, Wooden Boat Fair, Nisqually Watershed Festival, Swantown BoatSwap and Chowder Challenge, Parade of Lighted Ships – and other activities we prize such as beachcombing, boating, fishing, or simply enjoying a cool breeze at a favorite restaurant or park. South Sound is a haven for relaxation and recreation. Businesses such as shellfish growers and tribal fisheries, tourism, water recreational boating, marinas, port-related businesses, development and real estate all directly depend on the health of the South Sound. With strong contributions from the South Sound, statewide commercial harvest of shellfish draws in over 100 million dollars each year. Fishing, boating, travel and tourism are all vibrant elements in the region’s base economy, with over 80 percent of the state’s tourism and travel dollars generated in the Puget Sound Region. Many other businesses benefit indirectly. Excellent quality of life is an attractor for great employees, and the South Puget Sound has much to offer! The South Puget Sound Forum, held in Olympia on April 29, 2006, provided an opportunity to rediscover the connections between economic vitality and the health of South Puget Sound, and to take action to protect the valuable resources of the five inlets at the headwaters of the Puget Sound Basin – Totten, Eld, Budd, Henderson, and the Nisqually Reach.
    [Show full text]
  • Laura Johnson Office of Shellfish and Water Protection February 19, 2015
    Laura Johnson Office of Shellfish and Water Protection February 19, 2015 Public Health – Always Working for a Safer and Healthier Washington 2014 Season • Vibrio parahaemolyticus Illnesses • Closures and time-to- temperature reductions • Environmental monitoring • Outreach • Other Vibrios Control Plan Rule Revision 2 Commercial shellstock oysters Non-commercial Single-source 26 Clams (geoduck and butter) 2 Multi-source 50 Crab 2 WA only 18 Oysters 8 WA and other states and provinces 32 Raw 5 Other commercial products Cooked 2 Shucked oysters 3 Both 1 Steamed clams 1 Salmon 1 Other Documented post harvest abuse 18 No traceback 7 3 Total Vibrio Illnesses from Oyster Consumption (Attributed to Washington State Growing Areas by Year) 120 100 80 60 Number of Number IIll ndividuals 40 20 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year Single Source Multi Source Recreational 4 TTC Reduction Growing Area Harvest Reduction Date Hood Canal 6 5/28/2014 Oakland bay 7/25/2014 Samish Bay 7/25/2014 Henderson Inlet 7/29/2014 Totten Inlet 7/31/2014 Reach Island 7/31/2014 Hammersley Inlet 8/1/2014 Pickering Passage 8/4/2014 Hood Canal 7 8/5/2014 Nahcotta 8/7/2014 Grays Harbor 8/13/2014 Rocky Bay 8/13/2014 Rocky Bay 8/20/2014 Hood Canal 1 8/21/2014 Eld Inlet 8/27/2014 Skookum Inlet 8/27/2014 Hood Canal 9 9/4/2014 Drayton Harbor 9/4/2014 Peale Passage 9/5/2014 Annas Bay 9/15/2014 Nisqually Reach 9/15/2014 Burley Lagoon 9/19/2014 5 tlh level Sporadic illness tlh level and sporadic illness High Vibrio Level Closure Growing Area Closure Date Reopening
    [Show full text]
  • Natonal Register of Historic Places •-•Vcu «F I Multiple
    NPS Form 10-900-0 (Jan 1987) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service RECEIVED dl Natonal Register of Historic Places •-•vcu «f I Multiple Property Documentation Form ' /W 2 01995 This form is for use in documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic j Lexts. See instructions n Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16). Complete each ijem.b_^markinc box or bj entering the requested information. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10-9J A. Name of Multiple Property Listing NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Related Cultural Resources Along Budd Inlet, Thurston County, WA, Prehistory to 1943 B. Associated Historic Contexts____________________________________________ Maritime History of Budd Inlet C. Geographical Data_______________________________________________ The area is adjacent to or inmediately upland within 1000 feet of Budd Inlet on Puget Sound from Dofflemyer Point on the east, south to Olympia, north of Capitol Lake and west to Cooper Point. These are the properties which were considered to fall within the close water to land relationship addressed in this document. LJSee continuation sheet D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related/p/operties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requ/reFfients set fo/ffi in 36 CFR Part 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Planning and Evaluation. Signature ertifying official Date Washin on State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation State or Federal agency and bureau I, hereby, certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register.
    [Show full text]
  • Estuarine Flow in the South Basin of Puget Sound and Its Effects on Near-Bottom Dissolved Oxygen
    A D e p a r t m e n t o f E c o l o g y R e p o r t Estuarine Flow in the South Basin of Puget Sound and its Effects on Near-Bottom Dissolved Oxygen Abstract The south basin of Puget Sound is a complex and interconnected system of straits, open reaches, and fjord-like bays. South-basin waters exchange with main-basin Puget Sound waters over a sill (shallow area) and through the Tacoma Narrows. Within the south basin, tidally-averaged net estuarine (residual) circulation can be normal (seaward at the surface, landward at depth), inverse (seaward at depth, landward at the surface), or sideways (seaward on one shore, landward on the other). This is due to the interaction of the basin’s complex geometry with tidal forcing as well as processes such as seasonal variations in river flow, snowmelt, evaporation, and wind. Low near-bottom dissolved oxygen is observed in some years at the north end of Case Inlet. Estuarine flow patterns around Harstine Island in the finger inlets could partially explain this variability in dissolved oxygen. Current meters were deployed in Dana and Pickering Passages for several months to test this idea. Results indicate that the estuarine flow alternates between (1) patterns of circulation splitting around Harstine Island, and (2) a surface clockwise (counterclockwise at depth) pattern with flow mostly out through Pickering Passage. We conclude that the estuarine flow pattern is controlled by variations in the wind. By Albertson, S.L., J. Bos, G. Pelletier, and M. Roberts Publication No.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B: Inventory
    THURSTON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Inventory and Characterization Report Final Draft – June 30, 2013 APPENDIX B: INVENTORY Introduction Thurston County is currently updating its Shoreline Master Program (SMP). As a part of this update, the County initiated its Shoreline Inventory process in November 2007. The Shoreline Inventory was conducted according to the County’s SMP Grant Proposal and the provisions in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-201(3)(c). The purpose of the Shoreline Inventory was to identify the baseline of available information on which to base the Analysis and Characterization (document to which this appendix is attached). The Inventory presented here, primarily in matrix form, is the result of an initial collection/collation of information, review on the part of the County and its Scientific Technical Advisory Council (STAG), and subsequent revision. The following Inventory is representative of identified (and dismissed) information sources following those reviews. Subsequent to the inventory review, and over the course of the Analysis and Characterization process, additional geospatial data has been provided by the Thurston County Geodata Center, and the Thurston County Planning Department. Those data are identified in Appendix C, but have not been specifically incorporated into this Inventory. During the Inventory process, a thorough review of existing information was conducted. General sources for information included: Thurston County’s document library (hard copy and digital); Thurston County’s geodata library (map products and GIS data, including County versions of other State geodata resources); Publically available geodata (various on-line mapping programs); and Other publically available documents, reports, and information pertinent to Thurston County (digital and hardcopy).
    [Show full text]
  • Oyster Varieties
    OYSTER VARIETIES East Coast Barnstable (Crassostrea virginica) - Massachusetts Fished from the Jewel's Island area of the north shore of historic Cape Cod, MA, Barnstables are pearly white shelled treasures. Medium choice size, with full salty meats. Beau Soleil (Crassostrea virginica) – New Brunswick, Canada Grown on suspension lines in the chilly waters off the eastern reaches of New Brunswick, these cocktail oysters have surprisingly full shells and plump meats. Classic, briny flavor and a mellow melon-like finish. Beaver Tail (Crassostrea virginica) – Rhode Island Grown in trays suspended 20-40 feet below the surface on the East Passage of Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, the tasty Beaver Tail oyster is so named because if it’s broad flat shape (like a beaver’s tail). Flavor is briny, with hints of sweetness and a buttery, bold finish. Belon (Ostrea edulis) - Maine The famous oyster of Europe, named for the river in Western France where they originated, are finally being grown in Maine. Belons have a distinct appearance, with a round, flat shell which resembles a scallop. Their flavor is also unique, with a very coppery finish which transforms into a delicious nectar with a drop of lemon juice. Blackberry Point (Crassostrea virginica) – Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Canada Blackberry Points are raised in the waters of Northwestern Prince Edward Island. Beach grown with a smooth shell, filled with plump meats. Mildly sweet, with a medium-high salinity on the finish. Blue Point (Crassostrea virginica) - Virginia The name ‘Blue Point’ originally applied only to oysters grown at Blue Point, Long Island, New York.
    [Show full text]
  • Hope Island State Park Hope Island State Park
    $ Q ! B % > B ! > ! ! ¼ ! ! D ! $ ! ¼ ! ¼ % ¼ ! ! ¼% $ ! ¼ % % !$ ! !! ! %% $¼ $ ¼ % ! ¼ ¼ % % % % ¼ % % % ¼$ % % > ¼ ¼ $ ! ! ¼ ! ! ¼ !! ¼ % ¼ % Q % ¼ %$ B $ ¼ ! ! ! ! % $ ¼ % ! : ! ¼ ! ! ¼ % $ % ¼ ¼ % % % ¼ D $ : > B % > % % ¼ % ! ! !$ ¼ % $ % B > ! % D ¼ D > > $ % B % : $ B $ % : > % B : B : B ¼ $ % % $ ¼ > : $ ! B Q % ¼ [ D ! % ¼ ! % % % $ ¼ ¼ % % Q ¼ $ % ú ¼ $ ¼ % B> ¼ % : > % % D $ ! B D $ % % Q D $ B % $ ¼ % B : % $ > ¼ Q ! > % % D %% $ ! ¼ B $ % ¼ % ¼ % D % % ¼ % > B $ % f ¼ Q % B $ B % B $ ¼ > % % > > % D $ % % B > % $ D Q > % ¼ ¼ Q % % ¼ D $ : : % ¼ $ > ! > B % ! > % B Q South Sound South Sound/Hope Island State Park Hope Island State Park Cascadia Marine Trail Hope Island State Park This jewel of an island plays host to an old farm and serene hiking trails. If you’re Number of Sites: Overflow Camping: there in the fall, bring an appetite for the apples that abound near the site. Keep 2 group sites (please do not camp in Yes, 8 other sites in a different area on your eyes peeled for the semi-tame deer which feed in the orchard clearing and near the orchard) island, but walkable. caretaker's house. Great view of Mt. Rainier from the steps down to the beach. Water: Sanitation Facilities: Natural History: No Vault toilet approx. 150 ft NE of site. Hope Island was named by Commander Charles Wilkes for one of his crew in 1841. Wilkes Extras: Ownership: was engaged in the mission of charting Puget Sound. The sea-life in the area consists of Mc Micken Island SP A hiking trail around the island Washington State Parks and Recreation beds of huge sea stars, sea cucumbers, shellfish,UV3 shrimp, and a variety of fish. Look for bioluminescence in the water on_ mid-summer nights. Fees: Fire Restrictions: ! H H H H H _H $12/night for up to 8 in site Gas-burning stoves only.
    [Show full text]
  • Budd Inlet Scientific Study: an Overview of Findings
    LOTT August 2000 Wastewater Resource Management Plan Budd Inlet Scientific Study: An Overview of Findings The LOTT Partners – Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater, and Thurston County – have invested over $3 million in an 18-month long scientific study of Budd Inlet. The results helped show to what extent Budd Inlet could be relied upon for continued and/or expanded discharge of the community’s treated wastewater flows in the future. If environmentally acceptable, additional winter discharge could offer a comparatively low cost way to gain reserve capacity as LOTT moves toward new wastewater recycling options. The scientific study final report was published in August 1998, and findings are also summarized in LOTT’s Wastewater Resource Management Plan. Summary of Study Findings The Budd Inlet Scientific Study is designed to answer several questions What’s Inside? which are key to LOTT’s Wastewater Resource Management Plan. The following presents a capsule summary of some answers offered by the Budd Inlet’s “Bathtub Theory” is Down the Drain ....... page 2 study: • Initial modeling results confirm that increased winter LOTT discharge Beachcombers Contribute to Budd Inlet Study .......... page 2 won’t harm Budd Inlet. Dissolved oxygen levels and other key water Study Pinpoints Bacteria Sources ............................... page 3 quality factors will remain largely unchanged. • Circulation in Budd Inlet is much stronger than previously under- Dissolved Oxygen Impacted by Plankton Growth ...... page 3 stood. Follow the Nutrients ................................................. page 3 • Circulation is good in both winter and Sediments Don’t Muddy the Waters .......................... page 3 summer months – it takes just 8 to 12 Scientific Information Collected days to replace the for Budd Inlet Study .................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Datum Distributions in Puget Sound, Washington, Based on a Tidal Model
    NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR PMEL-122 Tidal Datum Distributions in Puget Sound, Washington, Based on a Tidal Model H.O. Mofjeld1, A.J. Venturato2, V.V. Titov2, F.I. Gonz´alez1, J.C. Newman2 1Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98115 2Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) University of Washington Box 351640 Seattle, WA 98195 November 2002 Contribution 2533 from NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory NOTICE Mention of a commercial company or product does not constitute an endorsement by NOAA/OAR. Use of information from this publication concerning proprietary products or the tests of such products for publicity or advertising purposes is not authorized. Contribution No. 2533 from NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory For sale by the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 ii Contents iii Contents 1. Introduction............................ 1 2. HarmonicConstantDatumMethod.............. 5 3. PugetSoundChannelTideModel............... 6 3.1 Description of the channel tide model ............. 6 3.2 Adjustmentsforcomputingthetidaldatums......... 7 4. Computational Procedures . .................. 14 5. ResultsandProducts....................... 15 5.1 Spatial distributions of the model datums ........... 15 5.2 Comparison of model and observed datums .......... 15 5.3 Geodeticdatums......................... 16 5.4 Available products ........................ 16 6. Discussion............................. 29 7. Summary .............................. 29 8. Acknowledgments......................... 30 9. Appendix: Tidal harmonic constants in Puget Sound . 30 10. References............................. 35 List of Figures 1.1 Bathymetric map of Puget Sound showing major basins and channels, cities, and NOAA tide stations. ..................... 3 1.2 Official tidal datums and sample observations of water at the 9447130 Seattle tide gage (47◦ 36.3N 122◦ 20.3W), relative to MLLW.
    [Show full text]
  • Thurston County Surface Water Quality Programs
    Thurston County Surface Water Quality & Sensitive Areas Purpose of this Presentation: To provide an overview of the County’s surface water quality conditions as it relates to septic systems Many County Programs Protect Water Quality Manage Stormwater ManageEnvironmental Septics Manage Roads & Regulate Infrastructure Development So that Thurston County residents can…. • Swim • Dig • Fish • Drink Water Thurston County Surface Water • Puget Sound • Lakes • Rivers Bacteria & Nutrients are Indicators of Septic Pollution • Fecal Coliform – – Indicates that disease-causing organisms, includes viruses, could be present • Nitrates – – Human health impacts, eutrophication, & indicates that other contaminants could be present, like pharmaceuticals Puget Sound Dense Development 2 hours “travel time” away Shellfish Growing Areas Monitored by Washington State Department of Health – 108 marine WQ stations monitored 6-12 times per year – Shoreline evaluations every 12 years – Annual waste water treatment plant & marina evaluations WDOH 2013 Early Warning System ELD INLET GROWING AREA – 3 Stations CONCERNED due to water quality HENDERSON INLET GROWING AREA – 4 Stations THREATENED due to water quality – 4 Stations CONCERNED due to water quality NISQUALLY REACH GROWING AREA – 4 Stations THREATENED due to water quality – 4 Stations CONCERNED due to water quality Shoreline Survey Findings Over 20% of the on-site sewage systems along the shoreline were defined as potential sources of pollution. High bacteria levels in a stream draining to the shoreline. High
    [Show full text]